Studia Logica 95 (1/2):279 - 300 (2010)
|Abstract||Earlier, we have studied computations possible by physical systems and by algorithms combined with physical systems. In particular, we have analysed the idea of using an experiment as an oracle to an abstract computational device, such as the Turing machine. The theory of composite machines of this kind can be used to understand (a) a Turing machine receiving extra computational power from a physical process, or (b) an experimenter modelled as a Turing machine performing a test of a known physical theory T. Our earlier work was based upon experiments in Newtonian mechanics. Here we extend the scope of the theory of experimental oracles beyond Newtonian mechanics to electrical theory. First, we specify an experiment that measures resistance using a Wheatstone bridge and start to classify the computational power of this experimental oracle using non-uniform complexity classes. Secondly, we show that modelling an experimenter and experimental procedure algorithmically imposes a limit on our ability to measure resistance by the Wheatstone bridge. The connection between the algorithm and physical test is mediated by a protocol controlling each query, especially the physical time taken by the experimenter. In our studies we find that physical experiments have an exponential time protocol, this we formulate as a general conjecture. Our theory proposes that measurability in Physics is subject to laws which are co-lateral effects of the limits of computability and computational complexity|
|Keywords||Turing machine physical oracle experimental procedure theory of measurement Wheatstone bridge physically measurable numbers|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Justin Leiber (1995). On Turing's Turing Test and Why the Matter Matters. Synthese 104 (1):59-69.
Justin Leiber (2006). Turing's Golden: How Well Turing's Work Stands Today. Philosophical Psychology 19 (1):13-46.
Gualtiero Piccinini (2011). The Physical Church–Turing Thesis: Modest or Bold? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 62 (4):733 - 769.
Itamar Pitowsky (2003). Physical Hypercomputation and the Church–Turing Thesis. Minds and Machines 13 (1):87-101.
Oron Shagrir & Itamar Pitowsky (2003). Physical Hypercomputation and the Church–Turing Thesis. Minds and Machines 13 (1):87-101.
B. Jack Copeland & Oron Shagrir (2007). Physical Computation: How General Are Gandy's Principles for Mechanisms? [REVIEW] Minds and Machines 17 (2):217-231.
Robert M. French (2000). Peeking Behind the Screen: The Unsuspected Power of the Standard Turing Test. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 12 (3):331-340.
Itamar Pitowsky (2002). Quantum Speed-Up of Computations. Proceedings of the Philosophy of Science Association 2002 (3):S168-S177.
D. King (1996). Is the Human Mind a Turing Machine? Synthese 108 (3):379-89.
Added to index2010-06-09
Total downloads11 ( #107,331 of 722,745 )
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?